[SECC] House Bill 19

Jay Pryor jpryor at uga.edu
Mon Jan 12 14:50:30 EST 2009

A couple of person observations . . .

I've always thought it was a bit strange, but it is true . . . that 
when I am having a QSO, listening and sending CW during my daily 
commute to Athens from Atlanta, I actually drive slower than when I'm 
listening to the AM/FM radio.  I like to think that I am also at 
least as careful.  I always get in the right lane and tend to 
maintain my position, following behind another car.  Maybe I've 
learned the limit to my multi-tasking ability.

 From the number of other mobile CW operators that I work during my 
commute, I can assure you that sending CW while in motion is not at 
all unusual.


Jay, K4OGG

At 01:51 PM 1/12/2009, K4SAV wrote:
>K4OD wrote:  "It is a presumption on my part, though I believe it 
>would be substantiated if researched, that 98% (or a figure very 
>close to that) of all amateurs refrain from actually "Sending CW" 
>while in motion."
>That would be an incorrect assumption. Most good CW ops find sending 
>CW while in motion to be no more distracting than doing phone while 
>in motion.  In both cases, only one hand is used for the radio function.
>Question:  Should the cops arrest themselves for using their radios?
>Jerry, K4SAV
>Gordon wrote:
>>(A former police officer, and safety instructor, speaks out)
>>I have been reading the various posts concerning the various 
>>aspects of GA House Bill #19 with great interest as well as a great 
>>amount for concern for my fellow amateurs.
>>The thrust of the bill, like it or not, is the promotion and 
>>assurance of a "safer roadway" for all to use.
>>It is a presumption on my part, though I believe it would be 
>>substantiated if researched, that 98% (or a figure very close to 
>>that) of all amateurs refrain from actually "Sending CW" while in 
>>motion.  Most of us simply find a convenient place and pull to the 
>>side of the road before commencing operations.  The bill in 
>>question has its thrust being "WHILE IN MOTION" though it may, or 
>>may not, state that effect in a parenthetical sense.
>>The use of a cell phone while in motion requires (for the most 
>>part) using a device which is hand held to the ear.  The same would 
>>be involved in the use of a microphone held in close proximity to 
>>the lips.  It does detract from one's ability to concentrate on 
>>driving.  Many a public record exists to substantiate that 
>>conclusion.  Simply stop a police officer on the road and ask 
>>him/her how many accidents he/she has worked where a cell phone in 
>>use was a primary factor in causing the accident.
>>I will never forget the day when my wife called me on the phone and 
>>told me that another driver had (while using a cell phone) hit her 
>>from behind while both vehicles were in motion.  That collision 
>>totalled out my wife's new car and I thank God every day that she 
>>was not injured.  Does this have any cause or effect in my writing 
>>this?  I would be less than truthful if I said, "No." but it does 
>>have more to do with my experiences before I ever met and married my wife.
>>The use of a headset, you say?  What is the purpose of a set of 
>>headphones over the ears?  To block out interfering noise.  Being a 
>>safe driver of a vehicle while in motion requires being aware of 
>>what you, as the driver,  can see and hear with respect of what is 
>>going on around you.  A headset of any type (with or without a boom 
>>microphone attached) detracts from one's ability to be cognizant of 
>>his/her surroundings.
>>I can remember my brother (K4BK) and I discussing making a mobile 
>>run of south Georgia counties during the Georgia QSO Party.  We 
>>never once considered mobile operations while in motion.  Our main 
>>thrust of the discussions was the ability to find and access a safe 
>>place to park in every county prior to  commencing 
>>operations.  Rick (NQ4I) commented that this would be the end of 
>>the GA QSO Party.  what an astonishingly stupid remark.  It well 
>>may be so for his particular part in the event but, for my part, I 
>>would rather have Rick abstain from participation rather than have 
>>him sending CW while in motion.  It is inherently unsafe!  Sorry, 
>>Rick, but that's how I feel about it.
>>If we sit back and complain about cell phone usage, and CBers using 
>>their equipment, while in motion, we cannot, in good faith, exempt 
>>ourselves from the same criticism.
>>Before we jump up and down and scream and holler about this bill 
>>and its effect on ham radio as a whole, let's read it very 
>>carefully and seek appropriate amendments to said bill to exempt 
>>the use of ham radio in emergency situations from the general scope 
>>of the legislation.
>>Now, I am rather certain that many will decry my statements and 
>>call me whatever but do think about this with a clear and objective 
>>mind before you start calling your representative demanding he/she 
>>vote against the bill as a whole and try to get him/her to offer 
>>amendments to work in our collective favor.
>>J. Gordon Rowe - K4OD
>>Lieutenant (Ret)
>>Fort Valley P.D.
>>SECC mailing list
>><mailto:SECC at contesting.com>SECC at contesting.com
>SECC mailing list
>SECC at contesting.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/secc/attachments/20090112/29b1ebb1/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the SECC mailing list